Analysis publishedpropertyresearchmethodologiesmethods200109
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Analysis publishedpropertyresearchmethodologiesmethods200109

on

  • 359 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
359
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
359
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Analysis publishedpropertyresearchmethodologiesmethods200109 Analysis publishedpropertyresearchmethodologiesmethods200109 Document Transcript

    • The Cutting Edge 2001An Analysis of Published Property Research Methodologies and Methods Deborah Levy, University of Auckland ISBN:1-84219-088-1 1
    • AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLISHED PROPERTY RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES AND METHODS Deborah Levy Department of Property The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland New Zealand Matthew Henry Department of Geography The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland New ZealandAbstractThis paper examines the research perspective, methodologies and methods of a sample ofinternational property journals over recent years. Content analysis is used to establish the mostutilised methodologies and methods embraced by the academic property community over the ten-yearperiod 1990-2000. Results indicate that almost exclusively US journals publish papers that containstatistical analysis, and in a majority of cases econometric modeling. UK journals although favouringstatistical analysis contain a wider number of approaches.IntroductionThis paper examines the research perspective, methodologies and methods of a sample ofUS and UK academic property refereed journals over the ten-year period between 1990 and2000. By utilising content analysis the theoretical perspective, methodological approach andmethod(s) are identified. After setting out the results of this analysis the authors discuss theimplications for the academic community and possible opportunities to expand the creativeenvironment for a broad and deeper understanding of the workings of the property market.Method and ProcedureA major goal of this paper is to determine the current use of different methodologies andmethods used to create the real estate body of knowledge. A full examination of all academicproperty journals was not possible within the context of this paper, thus a sample of propertyjournals published between 1990 and 2000 were identified and content analysis utilised toidentify theoretical perspective, methodology, methods and topic areas. The intention of theresearch is not to produce an exhaustive review of all property journals but to identify generaltrends based on a sample as described below. The journals selected for examination wereperceived as reflecting the property discipline in both the UK and US. The US Journals werechosen from the group of journals documented by Diaz III, Black and Rabianski (1996) asbeing amongst the top ranked American academic property journals. The journals utilised forthis research are listed below.UK Journals• Journal of Property Finance (JPF),• Journal of Property Investment and Finance (JPIF),• Journal of Property Research (JPR),• Journal of Property Valuation and Investment (JPVI),US Journals• Journal of Real Estate Research (JRER),• Real Estate Economics (REE) 2
    • Housing Studies (HS) was also included due to the number of property academics regularlypublishing in this journal. It was perceived by the authors as a top ranked interdisciplinaryacademic journal containing a wider range of approaches than other property specificjournals, which constitute the core terrain for property academics.Once the journals were identified, a sample of papers was then taken for analysis. Thesample comprised of papers published in the first volume in each of the years 1990, 1992,1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000. Where the first issue consisted of a special edition, the nextnon-special issue in that volume was chosen. Full runs of papers (1990-2000) were possiblefor JPF, JPVI, JRER, REE, and HS, whilst the JPR run extended from 1992-2000, and JPIFonly in 2000. In total 217 papers were available for analysis. The results of this paper wereacquired through content analysis of the papers contained in these journals. Content analysishas been described as a methodology utilised by researchers seeking to determine thecontent of textual material through a process of systematic classification and analysis(Berger, 1998; Wright, 1986). In the context of this work each paper within the sampledescribed above was categorised in the following way:• by the theoretical perspective adopted by the author(s),• by the methodologies used to organise the data collection process, and• by the specific methods used to collect information.In addition to these three categories two further categories of information were also collected:• the gender of authors, and• the institutional affiliation of authors.Information on gender was collected through an examination of authors’ first names, andinstitutional affiliation through the stated correspondence addresses.DefinitionsThe process of generating the research information was based on the interpretation of texts,therefore a number of broad definitions were required in order to guide the classification ofpapers. These are outlined below:Theoretical PerspectiveTheoretical perspective can be defined as the philosophical stance informing the practice ofresearch (Crotty, 1998). The theoretical perspective for this research was based on whetherthe paper assumed a positivist or non-positivist perspective. A positivist perspective isdefined as an approach that seeks by way of value-free, detached observation, “to identifyuniversal features of humanhood, society and history that offer explanation and hencecontrol and predictability” (Crotty, 1998, p67). In particular a positivist approach isunderpinned with assumptions of objectivity, validity, and generalisability (Crotty, 1998). Incontrast, non-positivist approaches were characterised as being primarily concerned withunderstanding and meaning in human actions (Crotty, 1998). It should be noted that bydefining positivism in this way there is no necessary link between it and the use ofquantitative techniques (Crotty, 1998).MethodologyMethodology comprises the strategy or plan of action, it is the research design that shapeschoices and the use of particular methods, and links them to the desired outcomes (Crotty,1998). For the purpose of this research four broad methodological categories wereconstructed; modelling, survey, heuristic inquiry, and textual, again there is no necessaryrelationship between the choice of theoretical perspective and defined methodology. Anexplanation of each methodology is set out as follows; 3
    • Modelling was broadly classified for the purpose of this paper as those attempts to eitherconstruct, or use, structured abstractions of reality. This definition did not limit the use ofmodelling methodology to simply mathematically formulated models e.g. econometricmodelling. Examples of papers classified in this way included the Colwell and Yavas (1992)study modelling the effects of building codes in achieving safe buildings and the Thompsonand Tscolacos (2000) paper that made projections in the industrial property market usingsimultaneous equation modelling.The process of survey relates to those various procedures involved in the collection andanalysis of data from individuals and/or groups. Rather than potentially include all thosepapers that utilised survey data, the analysis limited the survey methodology to those papersthat directly reported upon survey practice (problem generation, sampling, data collectionand analysis) as the explicit intent of the paper (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1992).Examples of such articles include Gallimore and Wolverton’s (2000) survey of valuers togauge their perceived role and their clients’ role, in the valuation process and Stockdale andLloyd’s (1998) survey carried out in two free-standing settlements in the Grampian area ofScotland.Heuristic methodologies referred to those approaches that relied on the incremental, butguided, exploration of research questions rather than upon the application of formally statedmodels (Moustakas, 1990). Moustakas (1990) defined this as a process of open-ended andexploratory research. The following articles were characterised as utilising heuristicmethodologies, Malpass (2000), which examined the relationships between existing HousingAssociations and their historical antecedents, and McCulloch (1990), which examined theextension, and regulation, of mortgages during the 1930s.In contrast with the methodologies outlined above, textual methodology was taken asreferring to those approaches that were more than simply reflections of an external, and apriori, world (Barnes and Duncan, 1992). In this respect, textual methodologies were definedas strategies that explicitly considered texts as an object of research in their own right ratherthan simply mediums of communication. Examples of textual methodology included, Mean’swork (1996), which addressed the issue From Special Needs Housing to IndependentLiving, and Chapman and Hunt’s (1996) policy review on housing and the European Union.Given the lack of self-definition by the majority of papers’ authors’ regarding their theoreticaland methodological perspectives, the results as set out below are based on the interpretationof the research material. Finally, no attempt was made to limit the potential number ofmethods that could be attributed to a paper.Papers sampledFigure 1, breakdowns the 217 papers sampled by journal. This can be classified into 95papers from US academic property journals, 83 papers from UK Property journals and 39from Housing Studies. 4
    • Figure 1Breakdown of papers by journalYear 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000Journal of Property Finance (UK) - 9 8 6 - -Journal of Property Investment and Finance (UK) - - - - - 6Journal of Property Research (UK) - 4 4 7 4 4Journal of Property Valuation and Investment (UK) 7 7 5 5 7 -Journal of Real Estate Research (US) 10 10 9 7 8 9Real Estate Economics (US) 7 6 8 7 7 7Housing Studies (UK) 6 5 7 7 7 7Total 30 41 41 39 33 33ResultsThe following section sets out the results of the content analysis. These results are thendiscussed in more detail together with their implications in the following section.GenderFigure 2 highlights the reflection of the small number of female authors represented in thejournals under study. From the total number of articles sampled women representedapproximately 8%, thus highlighting the dominance of male authors publishing in theinternationally refereed property journals sampled for this paper.Figure 2Breakdown of papers by genderJournal Male Male Female Female D/K D/K Total % Total % Total %Journal of Property Finance 33 89 1 3 3 8Journal of Property Investment and Finance 9 82 2 18 0 0Journal of Property Research 33 89 3 8 1 3Journal of Property Valuation and Investment 55 92 2 3 3 5Journal of Real Estate Research 103 88 9 8 5 4Real Estate Economics 79 90 3 3 6 7Housing Studies 37 89 13 3 2 8Total 349 87 31 8 20 5Theoretical PerspectiveThe results relating to theoretical perspective have been examined both in terms of theinclusion and exclusion of Housing Studies (Figure 3).Figure 3Theoretical perspective Positivist Positivist Non Non Positivist Positivist Total % Total %Journal of Property Finance (UK) 15 65 8 35Journal of Property Investment and Finance (UK) 6 100 0 0Journal of Property Research (UK) 17 74 6 26Journal of Property Valuation and Investment (UK) 21 68 10 32Journal of Real Estate Research (US) 53 100 0 0Real Estate Economics (US) 42 100 0 0Housing Studies 19 49 20 51Total (including Housing Studies) 173 80 44 20Total (excluding Housing Studies) 154 87 24 13 5
    • It is clear from Figure 3 that the majority (87%) of property journals under examination take apositivist standpoint to their research. The results further highlight the purely positivistapproach of the two US Journals where every published article is written from a positivistperspective. Housing Studies, as anticipated contained approximately a 50% split betweenpositivist and non-positivist papers.Figure 4Methodology (total number of papers) Econ Econ Survey Survey Heur Heur Text Text Model Model istic istic ual ual Total % Total % Total % Total %JPF (UK) 7 30 5 22 5 22 6 33JPIF (UK) 2 33 0 0 0 0 4 67JPR (UK) 14 61 3 13 5 22 1 5JPVI (UK) 9 29 2 6 16 52 4 13JRER (US) 36 68 7 13 9 17 1 2REE (US) 39 93 2 5 0 0 1 0HS 1 2 11 28 20 51 7 17Total (including HS) 108 50 30 14 55 25 24 11Total (excluding HS) 107 60 19 11 35 20 17 10The results relating to methodology as set out in Figure 4 indicate a preference towardseconometric modelling in property academic journals, with 60% of articles categorised asusing this method. This is even more evident when analysing the US journals which have asubstantially higher bias towards this approach, (JRER 68% and REE 93%). The authorspublishing in Housing Studies during the 1990 and 2000 time period indicated a preferencetowards heuristic at 51%. with only 2% of articles utilising econometric modelling.Figure 5Statistical analysis Statistical Analysis % of papers sampledJournal of Property Finance (UK) 13 57Journal of Property Investment and Finance (UK) 2 33Journal of Property Research (UK) 16 70Journal of Property Valuation and Investment (UK) 15 48Journal of Real Estate Research (US) 49 94Real Estate Economics (US) 41 98Housing Studies 17 44Total (including Housing Studies) 153 71Total (excluding Housing Studies) 136 84Figure 5 sets out the results indicating the number of articles incorporating statisticalanalysis. It was concluded that US property journals are heavily biased in this respect with98% of articles found in REE, and 94% in JRER utilising some form of statistical analysis. Asmaller percentage of UK articles rely on this approach with the maximum percentage foundin JPR at 70%. In contrast Housing Studies reflects only 44% of articles using some form ofstatistical analysis.Discussion and ImplicationsThe purpose of this paper was to examine the theoretical perspective, methodologies andmethods utilised in a number of internationally refereed property journals and compare thesewith top ranking interdisciplinary UK journal, Housing Studies. The results in themselves arenot surprising but contribute to the identification of the current approaches to real estate 6
    • research. The study has indicated a number of trends, and highlights the different emphasisbetween UK and US journals. The US journals considered, tend to publish articlesexclusively from a positivist standpoint, favour econometric modelling and other forms ofquantitative statistical analysis. The UK journals also tend to publish articles from a positivistperspective but contain a wider range of analysis. Housing Studies however was found to befar more wide ranging in methodologies, methods and theoretical standpoint. The questiontherefore is whether the property discipline should be widening its approaches in line withother disciplines or continue to concentrate primarily on econometric modelling and otherforms of statistical analysis.Gerald Brown identified in his 1995 editorial for The Journal of Property Finance “animportant shift towards rigorous quantitative analysis”. The question that this paper poses is;has this shift been to the exclusion of exploring the benefits of rigorous qualitative analysis?The authors argue that the property academic community should again consider whether thelimited number of methodologies and theoretical perspectives are conducive to the growth ofa creative environment for a broad and deep understanding of the workings of the propertymarket.The results of this study highlight the emphasis on quantitative research methods based oneconometric modelling and a dearth of research utilising qualitative methods. In propertystudies as in other similar disciplines the quantitative approach to research is perceived bymany as objective relying heavily on statistics and figures, whereas the qualitative approachis perceived as subjective and uses language and description (Khun, 1970). It is argued thatthey can both contribute to understanding reality (Jean Lee, 1992) as no single approach hasa total view of reality. The results of this study should encourage property researchers toinvestigate different approaches available to them, in order to foster a deeper understandingof property and the wider markets they form.The next section of this paper examines the potential for qualitative research within theproperty academic discipline, it commences with a short description of qualitative research, itthen discusses a number of misconceptions regarding its lack of rigour. Finally, it considershow it can be utilised in conjunction with quantitative approaches by way of triangulation andthereby inform quantitative methods.Qualitative ResearchThere are many definitions of qualitative research, Strauss and Corbin (1990, p17) define itas any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statisticalprocedures or other means of quantification. Berg (2001) differentiates between qualitativeand quantitative research by identifying qualitative research as referring to meanings,concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and descriptions of things,whereas quantitative research as referring to counts and measures of things. Denzin andLincoln (1994, p 4) state that qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature ofreality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and thesituational constraints that shape inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress howsocial experience is created and given meaning. In contrast, quantitative studies emphasisethe measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes.Inquiry is purported to be within a value-free framework. These definitions suggest that manyresearchers identify quantitative research with numbers and relationships between variableswhereas qualitative research more with the exploration of ideas, concepts and meanings.This differentiation often results in qualitative research being criticised for it being non-scientific and thus invalid. As in any research approach if careful and rigorous design is notaccomplished, qualitative research can be wrong (Miles and Huberman, 1994), and ofcourse, some qualitative research projects have been poorly conducted (as have somequantitative studies), but it would be disturbing if property academics dismiss the entire 7
    • qualitative school of thought just because some studies inadequately applied the paradigmsand the methods (Berg, 2001).It is a common misconception that reliability and validity can not be achieved in qualitativeresearch. Reliability and validity within this context make up the components of qualitativeobjectivity. “Reliability” is defined as “the degree to which the finding is independent ofaccidental circumstances of the research” and “validity” the degree to which the finding isinterpreted in the correct way”. Good qualitative research can be rigorous and if carried outcorrectly should be extremely systematic and have the ability to be reproduced bysubsequent researchers (Berg, 2001). There is now a plethora of academic literatureinforming of systematic processes that ensure valid meaning and reliable knowledge can bedrawn from qualitative data (Miles and Huberman, 1994). It is therefore argued that withinthis framework, qualitative research has the ability to answer a wide-ranging number ofresearch questions, which may not be effectively addressed by traditional quantitativeanalysis. Figure 6 highlights how different qualitative research techniques can assist inexploration, explanation, description and prediction. This further demonstrates theopportunities available to property academics in widening the types of research questionsbeing addressed by the discipline by embracing an expanded methodological base.Figure 6Qualitative Research - matching research questions with research strategyPurpose of the study Research question Research strategy Example of collection techniquesEXPLORATORY• To investigate little • What is happening in the • Case study • Participant observation understood phenomena industry? • Field study • In-depth interviewing• To identify/discover • What are salient themes, • Expert opinion important variables patters, categories in • Focus groups• To generate hypotheses participants’ meaning for further research structures? • How are these patterns linked with one another?EXPLANATORY• To explain the forces • What events, beliefs, • Multisite case study • Participant observation causing the phenomenon attitudes, policies are • History • In-depth interviewing in question shaping this phenomenon? • Field study • Survey questionnaire• To identify plausible causal • How do these forces interact • Ethnography • Document analysis networks shaping the to result in the phenomenon phenomenon?DESCRIPTIVE• To document the • What are the salient • Case study • Participant observation phenomenon of interest behaviours, events, • Field study • In-depth interviewing attitudes, structures, • Ethnography • Document analysis processes occurring in this • Unobtrusive measures phenomenon? • Survey questionnairePREDICTIVE• To predict the outcomes of • What will occur as a result of • Experiment • Survey questionnaire the phenomenon this phenomenon? • Quasi experiment (large sample)• To forecast the events and • Who will be affected? • Kinesics behaviours resulting from • In what ways? • Content analysis the phenomenonSource: Marshall and Rossman, 1989Not only can qualitative research be used alone to answer specific research questions butthere are a growing number of academics that are now recognising the advantages ofintegrating both qualitative and quantitative research methods by way of triangulation.Triangulation is broadly defined by Denzin (1978, p291) as “the combination ofmethodologies in the study of the same phenomenon”. It is largely a vehicle for crossvalidation when two or more distinct methods are found to be congruent and yieldcomparable data. Triangulation may not be suitable for all research purposes, however, it is 8
    • argued that it heightens qualitative methods to their deserved prominence and at the sametime, demonstrates that quantitative methods can and should be utilised in complementaryfashion (Jick, 1979).Max Kummerow is one property academic that has recognised the benefits of such anapproach and published the following in an essay examining “Graaskamp on ResearchMethods”:“My personal view is that qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary and thatmethodological mutual respect is as valuable as racial or religious tolerance. Not only arediverse methods interesting in themselves, combining methods may lead to greaterunderstanding and better outcomes both in research and practice. Most real-world decisionswould be improved by information from both qualitative and quantitative research”(Kummerow, 2000)In this essay Kummerow recommends a problem-solving research approach combining bothqualitative and quantitative approaches. He comes to this conclusion by recognising theinherent limitations of econometric models in particular highlights issues relating to datalimitations, misspecification, pretest bias, structural change and “other concerns that imposelimits on what models can tell us” he recognises these limits to be inherent in the nature ofreality. (Kummerow, 2000)Other areas where econometricians recognise qualitative research as being useful is inseeking out “left-out variables” Rao and Miller clearly state that “the true regressionspecification can be estimated only when the researcher knows the truth and has data on allvariables to estimate it. A common situation is one in which the researcher has “left out”variables either because he is unaware of their presence in the true specification or becausehe does not have data for including them in the estimated equation” (Rao and Miller1971,p29)Current models in many cases still have a certain amount left unexplained, could qualitativeapproaches bring to the for unexplained issues? An example of this is the issue of appraisalsmoothing, in-depth interviews with valuers and clients have allowed academics tounderstand more fully the valuation process, which may account for one aspect of appraisalsmoothing (Levy and Schuck, 1999). It would have been difficult to uncover this processwithout the use of in-depth interviews with the players involved in the process. Forecastingmodels are another area where qualitative approaches may be of benefit. In many casesforecasting models capture past trends in order to forecast, this will inevitably leads to purelyquantitative approaches being slow to reflect behavioural changes in the market. Qualitativemethods allow the research to explore more deeply possible issues for change and thus maybe effective in shedding light on potential changes.SummaryThis paper, through the content analysis of 217 academic papers over a ten- year period,has highlighted the limited number of methodologies and methods represented in a numberof internationally refereed academic property journals. The authors argue that in order tofoster a deeper understanding of property markets and the behaviour of players within them,property academics should look to embrace alternative methods and methodologies and asKummerow states “Journals should be more open to more diverse papers” (Kummerow2000). There seems to be evidence of a change of view towards qualitative approaches andhopefully a similar study in the future will an important shift towards rigorous qualitativeresearch. 9
    • ReferencesAitken, S. (1997). Analysis of Texts: Armchair Theory and Couch-Potato Geography, in R.Flowerdew, and Martin, D. (eds), Methods in Human Geography, Longman, Harlow, 197-212.Barnes, J., and Duncan, T.J., (1992). Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text, and Metaphor in theRepresentation of Landscape, Routledge, LondonBerg, Bruce L., (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (4th Edition),Allyn and BaconBerger, A. A. 1998: Media Research Techniques, 2nd. Ed., Sage Publications, London.Chapman, M., and Hunt, A. (1996). Policy Review- Housing and the European Union,Housing Studies, 11(2): 307-318.Colwell, P. F., and Yavas, A. (1992). The Value of Building Codes, Journal of the AmericanReal Estate and Urban Economics Association, 20(4): 501-517.Crang, M. 1997: Analyzing qualitative materials, in R. Flowerdew, and Martin, D. (eds),Methods in Human Geography, Longman, Harlow, 183-196.Crotty, Michael (1998).The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in theResearch Process. Allen and Unwin, AustraliaDenzin, Norman K., and Lincoln, Yvonna S., (eds), (1994). Handbook of QualitativeResearch, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaDenzin, Norman K., (1978). The Research Act (2nd Edition) McGraw Hill, New YorkDiaz III, Julian, Black, Roy T. and Rabianski, Joseph, (1997). A Note on Ranking Real EstateResearch Journals, Real Estate Economics, 24(4), pp551-563Gallimore, P., and Wolverton, M. (2000). The Objective in Valuation: a Study of the Influenceof Client feedback, Journal of Property Research, 17(1) pp47-57.Jean Lee S K. (1992). Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research Methods - Two Approachesto Organisation Studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 9(1) pp 87-94Jick, Todd D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action,Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, pp 602-611Kummerow, Max. (2000). Graaskamp on Research Methods in DeLisle, James R. andWorzala, Elaine M. (eds), Essays in Honor of James A. Graaskamp: Ten Years After, KluwerAcademic Publishers, BostonLevy, D.S. and Schuck, E. (1999). The Influence of Clients on Valuations, Journal of PropertyInvestment and Finance, 17(4), pp 380-400McCulloch, A. (1990). A Millstone Round Your Neck? Building Societies in the 1930s andMortgage Default, Housing Studies, 5(1) pp43-58.Malpass, P. (2000). The Discontinuous History of Housing Associations in England, inHousing Studies, 15(2) pp195-212. 10
    • Marshall, Catherine. Rossman, Gretchen B.(1989).Designing Qualitative Research, SagePublications, Newbury Park, CaliforniaMeans, R. (1996). From Special Needs Housing to Independent Living, Housing Studies,11(2) pp207-231.Miles, Matthew B. and Huberman, A. Michael. (1994).Qualitative Data Analysis : AnExpanded Sourcebook (2nd Edition) Sage Publications, Thousand OaksMoustakas, G. (1990). Heuristic Research: Design, Methodology and Applications, SagePublications, London.Rao , Potluri, and Miller, Roger LeRoy, (1971). Applied Econometrics, Wadsworth PublishingCompany, CaliforniaStockdale, A., and Lloyd, G. (1998). Forgotten Needs? The Demographic and Socio-economic Impact of Free-Standing New Settlements, Housing Studies, 13(1) pp43-58Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded TheoryProcedures and Techniques, Sage Publications Ltd., Newbury Park, CAThompson, R., and Tscolacos, S. (2000). Projections in the Industrial Property Market usinga Simultaneous Equation System, Journal of Real Estate Research, 19(1/2) pp165-188.Wright, C. R. (1986) Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective, Random House, NewYork. 11